I figured it would go without saying that I'm pro life. What difference does it make?

So how can you say we don't share a common goal?

Now that we have established that, if I were to show you something that is demonstrably or theoretically pro life you'd have a couple of choices. Only two of those choices are productive to our common goal. One is excusable perhaps. The rest are counter-productive...

- You may offer your support for my proposal
- You may offer a counter-proposal (Or corrections), which then puts the ball back in my court to either support/counter or declare my incapacity as per my next point
- You may declare an inability to deduce whether or not my proposal is valid (I've admittedly held this position with you before)

Anything else, such as indifference or ad hominems or whatever... is surely counter-productive to our common goal.

For instance, is socialism a truly pro life or anti life economic theory? Is it moral, in other words. There are two ways to tackle this. Either by offering an extensive and detailed breakdown of the long term effects of socialism in society (Or if historical data is not attainable - provide valid arguments or testable hypothesis). Or by determining a blanket statement that is also universal unto the common goal and is applicable or overlaps the requirements of the subject at hand - which is a higher risk strategy but is also efficient (i.e. Theft is ALWAYS immoral, therefore socialism is immoral - Or theft is not ALWAYS immoral, therefore socialism deserves more scrutiny).

So now I've argued that a stance that is anti-life is illogical as it is one's own undoing essentially.
We've established a common goal that is universal unto the proponents within that scope. We're all living, so welcome to the party.
We have a good easy platform to assess. There are only 2 productive, and 1 excusable, choices to make. Anything else invalidates your claim for being pro-life.
What more then do you need? Other than a certain boldness in the face of responsibility and a certain humbleness in the face of human error.

I mean, sorry if I'm going down a ridiculous path here. Just testing a train of thought

So who get's to decide what's pro life or anti life? Perhaps this could come in the form of good solicitation. No government required. No central authority required. Though in a religious sense may require a movement of sorts and can certainly setup institutes of learning and dissemination that is in every way as voluntary as it is relevant. We build our unification from within - not from external authority (Because of the enablement our own proposals offer, and the sensitivity all proponents of the pro life movement must endure to remain true to the common goal, we all have a voice on the matter. And in cases of incapacity the matter naturally defers to the intelligentsia or better prepared). Surely who's to sanely argue they are truly anti-life and still be living themselves The person that does that is surely a walking hypocrisy.

Perhaps the awakening is a realization that we are all part of this club and to not keep deferring this responsibility externally to something that is not part of this club. (Sorry God, you're out buddy For you are not as mortal as I. Let me do me as you have commanded and offered your blessing, go forth and multiply. This is my abstraction, my art, my interpretation of the work I do rightly by you.) - Something like this might be needed for someone with religious "resistance" to transition. My nut-jobbery aside

If "life" is the common goal, sure. But that doesn't mean everybody is going to make the same choice. You're excluding the fact that people born into a system are never asked to join the system. If your system of values must be determined through the execution of arbitrary choice. I'm sorry, I just can't take a utopian idea where everybody shares the same goal as the philosophical grounding for a practical sociopolitical project. The result of that line of thinking is Stalinist Russia.

If "life" is the common goal, sure. But that doesn't mean everybody is going to make the same choice. You're excluding the fact that people born into a system are never asked to join the system. If your system of values must be determined through the execution of arbitrary choice. I'm sorry, I just can't take a utopian idea where everybody shares the same goal as the philosophical grounding for a practical sociopolitical project. The result of that line of thinking is Stalinist Russia.

If Stalinist Russia is demonstrably anti-life, not sure how this would result in that. Are you referring to this "system" being corrupted at some point? Or is this in your mind the train of logic pro-life consensus itself would yield (Which seems self-contradictory)?

I don't follow how you got to that conclusion. I suspect the former as the latter is certainly self-contradictory but need confirmation - or something that I missed. If it is the former, I was hoping that the idea of solicitation rather than enforcement would hold up. Nobody forces anyone to be pro-life. But how then do we deal with those who aren't? I certainly have every right not to deal with them if I so choose.

EDIT: If your issue is that to some people Stalinist Russia certainly is demonstrably pro-life - well then do we separate these groups by advocating for homogeneity once again?

If Stalinist Russia is demonstrably anti-life, not sure how this would result in that. Are you referring to this "system" being corrupted at some point? Or is this in your mind the train of logic pro-life consensus itself would yield (Which seems self-contradictory)?

The Marxist system failed because it believed it could use rationality (atheist materialism) as a sytem to decide the best way forward. It then went and built an ideology where everyone was supposed to join in a revolution to overthrow the old tyrannies of the past and to build a new utopia once the old orders were purged. What happened when the soviets got into power and their message turned out to not be as true as they would have liked?

The point here is that Stalinist Russia was nominally pro-life. By stating that we have a common goal, you are making the same sort of claim. People who displayed wrongthink in Russia were sent to the Gulag, and their independent thinking was taken as proof of their crime.

If your social value system operates according to that sort of paradigm, you will end up with the same sort of outcome. A society that cannot express itself honestly has no hope of being just.

The Marxist system failed because it believed it could use rationality (atheist materialism) as a sytem to decide the best way forward. It then went and built an ideology where everyone was supposed to join in a revolution to overthrow the old tyrannies of the past and to build a new utopia once the old orders were purged. What happened when the soviets got into power and their message turned out to not be as true as they would have liked?

The point here is that Stalinist Russia was nominally pro-life. By stating that we have a common goal, you are making the same sort of claim. People who displayed wrongthink in Russia were sent to the Gulag, and their independent thinking was taken as proof of their crime.

If your social value system operates according to that sort of paradigm, you will end up with the same sort of outcome. A society that cannot express itself honestly has no hope of being just.

If I am not willing to learn from the mistakes of the past then I am not being rational

Seeing as you're so anti rational I wonder if you caught the full intended meaning of that...

Tell me, how is it possible to have a discussion - or any understanding at all - without rationality? To me, without rationality there is either absolute true chaos or nothing. What is the antithesis of rationality according to you? And how do we apply this antithesis in a meaningful way? How can that antithesis even be applicable in any form or fashion?

Is your approach to reality part chaos and part order? Is God a quantum state - whatever that means? I'm really trying to get to the bottom of your way of thinking but that seems... well... it seems like "no thinking" - no action - at all No offense, I can't put it any other way - that's exactly the opposite of rationality. Can you elaborate on how being opposed to the rational (Whatever that means exactly) yields anything useful at all?

I suspect, with language and discourse, you cannot provide me with an answer. :/ For those are constructed and decoded by rational processes. It curiously requires that thing called "time" in which we're kind of stuck To me you're like a computer that is trying to find a way to function without a clock cycle or frequency (Aaand there I go googling and digging into another interesting concept I might never understand - FML).

Seeing as you're so anti rational I wonder if you caught the full intended meaning of that...

Tell me, how is it possible to have a discussion - or any understanding at all - without rationality? To me, without rationality there is either absolute true chaos or nothing. What is the antithesis of rationality according to you? And how do we apply this antithesis in a meaningful way? How can that antithesis even be applicable in any form or fashion?

Rationality does not determine reality. Rationality discovers reality. Rational choice is not involved.

If you want me to accept the viability of your system as a basis for a sound society, you have to demonstrate to me how I can't break it with my rational mind by demonstrating to you where I can leverage my rational choice to dictate to the system what the reality is.

Is your approach to reality part chaos and part order? Is God a quantum state - whatever that means? I'm really trying to get to the bottom of your way of thinking but that seems... well... it seems like "no thinking" - no action - at all No offense, I can't put it any other way - that's exactly the opposite of rationality. Can you elaborate on how being opposed to the rational (Whatever that means exactly) yields anything useful at all?

Space is order, it is determined. Time is chaos, it is unpredictable. Reason pertains to order, emotions pertain to chaos. You can't define chaos in terms of order, you can't define order in terms of chaos. Truth is fact, good is value. Truth is judged by reason, goodness is judged by emotion.

The thing we value above all else is our time. We strive to extend our lifetimes.

What happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force? Genesis, for what is the immovable object but space itself, and what is the unstoppable force but time itself? This isn't a statement of fact so much as an observation of the psychological necessities with respect to the way our mind is forced to arrange reality in order to make sense of it. Humans can't help but recognise their own capacity to create the future they desire. Why wouldn't creation itself be venerated as the highest virtue? Isn't it right, psychologically speaking, that we pay homage to the Creator?

I suspect, with language and discourse, you cannot provide me with an answer. :/ For those are constructed and decoded by rational processes. It curiously requires that thing called "time" in which we're kind of stuck To me you're like a computer that is trying to find a way to function without a clock cycle or frequency (Aaand there I go googling and digging into another interesting concept I might never understand - FML).

Your mind is definitely contorting itself in the right direction. You have a blindspot regarding free will; you treat it as a non-entity when paying respect to the concept is actually the cornerstone of a responsible society.

Rationality does not determine reality. Rationality discovers reality. Rational choice is not involved.

If you want me to accept the viability of your system as a basis for a sound society, you have to demonstrate to me how I can't break it with my rational mind by demonstrating to you where I can leverage my rational choice to dictate to the system what the reality is.

An analogy if I may...

I could provide the best nutritional and fitness guidance under the sun but you are under no obligation to follow it. But the affect of which would become evident over time and is your own undoing You'd grow obese and unhealthy.

Not to belittle morality itself, but the principle for how we determine good nutrition is the same as how we could might consider determining good morals no? Through decades of excruciating study, turmoil, contestation and hopefully ultimate attunement one day. Once again I don't see how that can be done by anything other than rationality.

I may not have made it clear but I wholeheartedly admit rationality is nowhere close to having the answers today - and so you can punch holes in the conclusions I get to, being pro-life you ought to But I hope with more focus we might get there one day, way beyond my lifetime even.

Space is order, it is determined. Time is chaos, it is unpredictable. Reason pertains to order, emotions pertain to chaos. You can't define chaos in terms of order, you can't define order in terms of chaos. Truth is fact, good is value. Truth is judged by reason, goodness is judged by emotion.

The thing we value above all else is our time. We strive to extend our lifetimes.

I'm undecided whether true chaos exists, or if the chaos you allude to is merely a void of uncertainty that our rationality is yet to grasp - the void that our emotions currently fulfill as a stop gap/survival measure. Do you have an opinion in which? I feel it is the latter - that true chaos doesn't exist (Or if it does it is somehow irrelevant - relevance is a rational concept ) but that we've formulated/inherited this concept due to our own limitation, but hell I have no way to prove that.

Perhaps as humans evolve we might grow more rational and as a result less violent. But again, I'm not sure.

What happens when the immovable object meets the unstoppable force? Genesis, for what is the immovable object but space itself, and what is the unstoppable force but time itself? This isn't a statement of fact so much as an observation of the psychological necessities with respect to the way our mind is forced to arrange reality in order to make sense of it. Humans can't help but recognise their own capacity to create the future they desire. Why wouldn't creation itself be venerated as the highest virtue? Isn't it right, psychologically speaking, that we pay homage to the Creator?

Your mind is definitely contorting itself in the right direction. You have a blindspot regarding free will; you treat it as a non-entity when paying respect to the concept is actually the cornerstone of a responsible society.

On a completely unrelated note I think you're exercising a lot of patience with me Thanks.

So my theory or current thinking is that life (Or the potential for life) started at the point of rationality (Which may include time itself) and from there it flowed on. The point of rationality being the culmination of all the laws of the universe (Of nature) into that single point of entry for energy seeking bundles matter - the event we refer to as abiogenisis. This is why I wonder if treating the concept of life itself as the first true universal meeting point, for everything that categorically inherited all of its traits from that single entry/meeting point, is technically as infallible as it is holistic from which to base our morals and understanding of ourselves. What then remains is our ability to accurately align with it, somehow.

I could provide the best nutritional and fitness guidance under the sun but you are under no obligation to follow it. But the affect of which would become evident over time and is your own undoing You'd grow obese and unhealthy.

Not to belittle morality itself, but the principle for how we determine good nutrition is the same as how we could might consider determining good morals no? Through decades of excruciating study, turmoil, contestation and hopefully ultimate attunement one day. Once again I don't see how that can be done by anything other than rationality.

You're assuming that not eating tasty treats is the correct decision. What if someone decides they want to enjoy stuffing their face even knowing the consequences? In society, recognising that other people may choose differently to you is exactly the obstacle to co-operation, but more to the point, society has to be able to proscribe certain actions, whch means placing restrictions upon the exercise of choice.

The question becomes, who is allowed to place such restrictions, and why?

I may not have made it clear but I wholeheartedly admit rationality is nowhere close to having the answers today - and so you can punch holes in the conclusions I get to, being pro-life you ought to But I hope with more focus we might get there one day, way beyond my lifetime even.

I'm not that patient.

I'm undecided whether true chaos exists, or if the chaos you allude to is merely a void of uncertainty that our rationality is yet to grasp - the void that our emotions currently fulfill as a stop gap/survival measure. Do you have an opinion in which? I feel it is the latter - that true chaos doesn't exist (Or if it does it is somehow irrelevant - relevance is a rational concept ) but that we've formulated/inherited this concept due to our own limitation, but hell I have no way to prove that.

I am almost certain that it is the former, not the latter. Specifically I think the wave-particle duality is a feature of this. I think that waves pertain to time and particles pertain to space.

Perhaps as humans evolve we might grow more rational and as a result less violent. But again, I'm not sure.

I don't think so.

On a completely unrelated note I think you're exercising a lot of patience with me Thanks.

I never can rule out the possibility that I'm wrong, so it pays to take the time to see if someone else can spot something you overlooked.

So my theory or current thinking is that life (Or the potential for life) started at the point of rationality (Which may include time itself) and from there it flowed on. The point of rationality being the culmination of all the laws of the universe (Of nature) into that single point of entry for energy seeking bundles matter - the event we refer to as abiogenisis. This is why I wonder if treating the concept of life itself as the first true universal meeting point, for everything that categorically inherited all of its traits from that single entry/meeting point, is technically as infallible as it is holistic from which to base our morals and understanding of ourselves. What then remains is our ability to accurately align with it, somehow.

Originally Posted by Jordan Peterson

"The worship of the rational mind makes you prone to totalitarian ideology. The Catholic Church always warned against this. The warning was that the rational mind always falls in love with its own creations. The intellect is raised to the status of highest god. The highest ideal that a person holds - consciously or unconsciously - that's their god. It functions precisely in that manner. It exists forever, it exists in all people, it takes them over and exists in their behavior. That's a god. We have to think about that idea functionally."

He says it better than I could, I think.

Originally Posted by David Hume

We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.